Married couples cannot legally dissolve their marriages by simply entering into a mutual written agreement titled ‘Divorce Settlement Deed’ and agreeing to part ways subject to fulfilment of certain conditions such as payment of a lump sum amount as alimony, the Madras High Court Bench here has said.
Justice P. Devadass said such a settlement deed could at best be relied upon by the male partner to get absolved of the responsibility of paying monthly maintenance to the wife that too only after proving the genuineness of the document before a judicial forum where the maintenance proceedings had been initiated by the woman.
The observations were made while passing a common order on two criminal revision petitions, one filed by a businessman challenging an order passed by a Family Court here to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000 to his minor daughter and another filed by his wife challenging the same court's refusal to order maintenance for her.
The lower Court here had denied maintenance to the woman by relying upon the ‘Divorce Settlement Deed’ which stated that she had agreed to dissolve the marriage and severe all ties on receipt of Rs.1.35 lakh at one go.
Though the woman denied having signed any such deed, the lower court held that she failed to prove that it was not a genuine document.
Disagreeing with the course adopted by the Family Court, Mr. Justice Devadass said that the court had put the cart before the horse by asking the woman to prove her counter claim. Pointing out that it was the husband who had relied upon the deed to deny maintenance and yet produced only a photocopy of it, the judge said that it was he who should have been asked to prove its genuineness.
Holding that the deed remained unproven and therefore liable to be eschewed from the zone of consideration, the judge also held that the marriage between the couple could not be considered to have been dissolved in the absence of a decree of divorce granted by a competent court. He ordered payment of monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000 to her.
Though the husband contended that his wife and child themselves had asked for monthly maintenance of only Rs.2,500 each, the judge said that courts should award a just amount considering the prices of essential commodities, educational expenses and so on even if the applicants had made a claim for a lesser amount unaware of all these aspects. He also said that there was no limitation period for a woman to claim maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure and hence she could be denied maintenance just because the maintenance case was filed a long time after their separation.
The judge also thwarted the husband’s attempt to wriggle out of his legal liability to pay maintenance to his daughter by pointing out that his father had created a fixed deposit for Rs.1 lakh in the name of the minor girl after the maintenance was ordered by the Family Court and hence there was no need for him to pay maintenance to her.
Mr. Justice Devadass said that a father cannot escape from paying maintenance to his daughter by citing money deposited by her paternal grandfather, out of love and affection, in a fixed deposit which could be utilised by her only after attaining majority.
